UNDERSTANDING-RESEARCH-PHILOSOPHIES-AND-APPROACHES.ppt

Editor's Notes

• #4: Epistemology concerns what constitutes acceptable knowledge in a field of study. The most important distinction is one hinted at above in our example of two researchers’ views of what they consider important in the study of the manufacturing process. The researcher (the ‘resources’ researcher) who considers data on resources needed is likely to be more akin to the position of the natural scientist. This may be the position of the operations management specialist who is comfortable with the collection and analysis of ‘facts’ . For that researcher, reality is represented by objects that are considered to be ‘real’, such as computers, trucks and machines. These objects have a separate existence to that of the researcher and for that reason, this researcher would argue that the data collected are far less open to bias and therefore more ‘objective’. The ‘resources’ researcher would place much less authority on the data collected by the ‘feelings’ researcher, who is concerned with the feelings and attitudes of the workers towards their managers in that same manufacturing process. The ‘resources’ researcher would view the objects studied by the ‘feelings’ researcher – feelings and attitudes – as social phenomena which have no external reality. They cannot be seen, measured and modified like computers, trucks and machines. You may argue, of course, that human feelings can be, and frequently are, measured. Indeed the ‘resources’ researcher may place more authority on such data were it to be presented in the form of a table of statistical data. This would lend the data more objectivity in the view of the ‘resources’ researcher. But this raises the question of whether those data presented in statistical form are any more deserving of authority than those presented in a narrative, which may be the choice of the ‘feelings’ researcher. The ‘resources’ researcher is embracing what is called the positivist position to the development of knowledge whereas the ‘feelings’ researcher is adopting the interpretivist perspective. We deal with both in the next section on epistemology, as well as the stance of the researcher taking the position of the realist and the pragmatist. Ontology, on the other hand, is concerned with nature of reality. To a greater extent than epistemological considerations, this raises questions of the assumptions researchers have about the way the world operates and the commitment held to particular views. The two aspects of ontology we describe here will both have their devotees among business and management researchers. In addition, both are likely to be accepted as producing valid knowledge by many researchers. Pragmatism argues that the most important determinant of the research philosophy adopted is the research question – one approach may be ‘better’ than the other for answering particular questions. Moreover, if the research question does not suggest unambiguously that either a positivist or interpretivist philosophy is adopted, this confirms the pragmatist’s view that it is perfectly possible to work with both philosophies. This mirrors a theme which recurs in this book. This is that mixed methods, both qualitative and quantitative, are possible, and possibly highly appropriate, within one study (see Section 5.4). Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) suggest that it is more appropriate for the researcher in a particular study to think of the philosophy adopted as a continuum rather than opposite positions. They note that ‘at some points the knower and the known must be interactive, while at others, one may more easily stand apart from what one is studying’ (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998:26)
• #5: Objectivism -This portrays the position that social entities exist in reality external to social actors. Subjectivism - The subjectivist view is that social phenomena are created from the perceptions and consequent actions of social actors. What is more, this is a continual process in that through the process of social interaction these social phenomena are in a constant state of revision.
• #6: Positivism - If your research philosophy reflects the principles of positivism then you will probably adopt the philosophical stance of the natural scientist. You will prefer ‘working with an observable social reality and that the end product of such research can be law-like generalisations similar to those produced by the physical and natural scientists’ (Remenyi et al., 1998:32). Realism is another epistemological position which relates to scientific enquiry. The essence of realism is that what the senses show us as reality is the truth: that objects have an existence independent of the human mind. The theory of realism is that there is a reality quite independent of the mind. Interpretivism is an epistemology that advocates that it is necessary for the researcher to understand differences between humans in our role as social actors. This emphasises the difference between conducting research among people rather than objects such as trucks and computers. The term ‘social actors’ is quite significant here. The metaphor of the theatre suggests that as humans we play a part on the stage of human life. In theatrical productions, actors play a part which they interpret in a particular way (which may be their own or that of the director) and act out their part in accordance with this interpretation. In the same way we interpret our everyday social roles in accordance with the meaning we give to these roles. In addition, we interpret the social roles of others in accordance with our own set of meanings. Axiology is a branch of philosophy that studies judgements about value. Although this may include values we possess in the fields of aesthetics and ethics, it is the process of social enquiry with which we are concerned here. The role that your own values play in all stages of the research process is of great importance if you wish your research results to be credible. T